Protestant Explanation of John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”
 
No doubt St. Paul also got it wrong when he warned the Corinthians that if they eat the Eucharist without recognizing therein the body of Christ, they eat and drink a judgment on themselves. And that if they receive unworthily, they sin *against the body and blood of the Lord. * (1 Cor 11:27ff)
 
kaycee said:
Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”
Click to expand...
Pope Gelasius uses the word ‘substance,’ but he does not use it with the Thomistic meaning. Thomas was to come much later. What he means is the bread and wine look the same before and after consecration. One cannot perceive the change by means of the senses. Yet he calls the sacrament “a divine thing,” by which we are made partakers of the divine nature. How could a mere symbol do that?

As for Augustine, see post #37. Does anyone really think that Augustine did not believe in the Eucharistic real presence?
 
Hi folks, there is a quite similar discussion in this thread.

And as I had done there also, I invite you all to go to the website in my signature, which is a thorough and good explanation of the Biblical and historical basis of the Eucharist.

👍
 
VociMike said:
A group that rejoices in being washed in “human” blood has no business making stupid comments like this, so just stop it, 'K?
Click to expand...
The difference is that we correctly recognize this to be metaphor.
 
kaycee said:
Clement of Alexandria

“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’ But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: ‘For the Son of man,’ He says, ‘came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans.’” (The Instructor, 2:2)
Click to expand...
Clement of Alexandria

“Eat my flesh,” [Jesus] says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children. (Paidagogos 1:6; 43:3)

This passage is in the Jurgen’s set (volume 1, page 178). The reference should be to Paidagogos (or The Instructor of Children) 1:6:42:3. While it is true St. Clement of Alexandria at some points takes these words literally as referring to the Eucharist, other times a strong allegorical teaching can be found in his writings. Darwell Stone, the Anglican scholar I have quoted often, cites the above passage…“Clement explains that the Lord feeds Christians with His own flesh and blood even as a mother feeds her infant child from her own body: ‘The young brood which the Lord Himself brought forth with throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swaddled with precious blood. O holy birth, O holy swaddling clothes, the Word is all to the babe, father and mother and tutor and nurse. “Eat ye My flesh,” He says, “and drink ye My blood.” This suitable food the Lord supplies to us, and offers flesh and pours out blood; and the little children lack nothing that their growth needs.’ Clement of Alexandria, Paed I:vi:42,43]” (vol 1, pg 37-38)
bringyou.to/apologetics/num29.htm
 
kaycee said:
Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”
Click to expand...
The following article will clarify this misunderstanding for you:
Did Pope Gelasius deny the doctrine of transubstantiation?

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
Here is the relevant passage often foisted by critics of the Catholic faith:
Click to expand...
“Sacred Scripture, testifying that this Mystery[ie. The Incarnation] began at the start of the blessed Conception, says; ‘Wisdom has built a house for itself’(Prov 9:1), rooted in the solidity of the sevenfold Spirit. This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we ‘are made sharers of the divine nature’(1 Pt 1:4). Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries.” (Pope Gelasius I[regn A.D. 492-496],Tract on the two natures against Eutchyes & Nestorius.)
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
First, Pope Gelasius categorically affirms the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is denied by James White.

Second, Pope Gelasius was concerned in defending the nature of Christ not the Eucharist. So he was not so concerned in giving his understanding of the Eucharist as he was in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation. Remember, the Church was concerned with various Christological heresies at this time which denied the two natures, the two wills, and the one [divine]personhood of Christ. At this point in time, the mystery of the Eucharist had not so developed in the mind of the Church to force upon the mind of Pope Gelasius an expression of the Eucharist in the terms of transubstantiation. The Church had to develop a theological language to express the mind of the Church on various matters of faith. The Church was just beginning to express its thoughts to describe the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. There was no question regarding a Real Presence in the Eucharist; however, it is another matter regarding the type of change(consubstantiation, transubstantiation etc.). At best, Pope Gelasius was simply saying that the appearance[accidents] of bread/wine remain alongside the Real Presence in an attempt to explain the mystery of the Incarnation, since Christ humanity remains alongside His divinity. Some scholars interpret the above passage to refer to the accidents of the bread and wine. Even this analogy has some holes in it. At worst, Pope Gelasius was simply incorrect in his Eucharistic theology. I tend to believe the Pope was somewhere in the middle. That is, Pope Gelasius was not so concerned with explaining the doctrine of the Eucharist, but wanted to explain the Incarnation via an analogy. As with most analogies, they are imperfect. In addition, his theological vocabulary did not allow him to express the mystery of the Eucharist with any more precision.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
Therefore, do not base your understanding of the Eucharist during this time on one single passage from Pope Gelasius. Instead cull the passages from contemporaries of Pope Gelasius which speak directly on the Eucharist. Here you will find a clear and broad witness on behalf of Transubstantiation.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif

For more info see:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif

James T. O’Connor’s “The Hidden Manna” pgs 71-73
Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” p. 382
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif

You wonder why critics of the Faith don’t downplay the divinity of Christ by citing Fathers prior to Nicea that seemingly subordinate the nature of Christ. Prior to definition, the Fathers are developing a theological vocabulary as they reflect on the mystery of the Incarnation, so it is no surprise to see some Fathers prior to Nicea seemingly downplay the divinity of Christ. This is the nature of development. Prior to definition, the Fathers are all over the theological landscape as they attempt to explain a divine mystery, and as time goes on the mystery becomes a little more clearer and more defined.
Click to expand...


cin.org/users/jgallegos/faq.htm
 
Randy, I am not a “separated brethren” but I was hoping you would not mind me responding?.

For all reading----

Did you know the Hebrew word for Bethlehem is “House of Bread”?

And do you realize that Mary placed her Son in a manger (comes from the Latin word which means to chew,to eat.) ( a place we put food)

Can you see how in the Ark of the Covenant ( Ark means a place of protection that holds, or possesses ) it was said to contain the Manna (bread from heaven) and the stone tablets (the Word of God)

Isn’t it wonderful when you put all the pieces together?

Jesus was born in a place that was called “House of Bread” and layed in a place we put food by a woman who held and protected within her “The Bread that fell from Heaven who is The Word of God made Flesh”. Then Jesus tells us “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and **drink **His blood you have no life in yourselves.”

How many ways do our separated breathren need to be told?🤷

Oh and that is why we call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant,she is the vessel that held the Bread that fell from heaven who is the Word of God made Flesh.
 
Atemi said:
The difference is that we correctly recognize this to be metaphor.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s certainly about time someone got this right, because for 1,500 years, everyone appears to have been committing idolatry by worshiping a piece of bread as God.

What was God thinking by allowing millions (billions?) of people who lived before the time of Martin Luther (who actually believed in the Real Presence, btw) to die in this sin?

It seems that the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church from the get-go making Jesus a liar. After all, if the Church can err this badly on such a central issue, Satan clearly pulled a fast one and God couldn’t do anything to prevent it.

Oh, if only Jesus had been more clear in his teaching in John 6…

If only he had not chosen his words so poorly that day in Capernaum…

If only he had chased those people down the road begging them to come back instead of letting them be lost over a misunderstanding…

If only he had clarified his teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood privately to his disciples later as he did on a dozen other places recorded in scripture…

If only he had used the word “metaphor” or “symbol” or said “this represents” instead of “this is” in the Upper Room that night…

If only Paul had straightened out the mess the original Apostles created by their misunderstanding when he wrote to the Corinthians…

If only Jesus had given a better explanation to Paul who simply passed on what Jesus had told him about “eating and drinking unworthily”…

If only the Holy Spirit had inspired just one author of the New Testament books and epistles to write a single line to direct us to a clearly symbolic interpretation…

If only the Holy Spirit had led the Church to infallibly teach the purely symbolic nature of the Eucharist from the outset…

But none of this happened.

If only you understood why…
 
Me again—

Do you remember how in Exodus 12 the people of God were to take a unblemished male lamb (Jesus) and sacrifice it (crucifixion) and take the blood and put it on the two doorposts (made of wood=cross) and then they were suppose to **eat it **(Host Latin word meaning Victim) with unleavened bread.It is the LORD’S Passover.

We celebrate the Lord’s Passover every Sunday in the Mass.

**Leviticus 7:15 **

15 'Now as for the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offerings, **it shall be eaten **on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning.

**Leviticus 17:11 **

11’For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’

**Luke 1:37 **

37"**For nothing will be impossible with God." **
 
Randy_Carson said:
If you declare that the sarx of Jesus profits us nothing, then the crucifixion was of no avail for it was upon the cross that Jesus’ sarx was crucified for our sins. Does that sarx really count for nothing?

Hardly. It appears you’ve danced all around it but overlooked v. 51:

John 6:51
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Jesus says that the bread he is speaking of is real flesh which he will give for the life of the world. Also, notice very carefully that when he is speaking here he specifically says “my flesh” and not “the flesh” which interestingly you correctly identify as carnal thinking below.

(cont.)
Click to expand...
Flesh in verse 63 is not referring to HIS flesh - I thought I explained that well but flesh is referring to the words that he was saying…thinking of these words from a carnal/literal standpoint. He then says that the words are to be taken as spirit.

John 6:63 KJV 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

So…do not look at the words from a fleshly (carnally minded) standpoint but from a spiritual standpoint. He was not talking about literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood…I have eaten Christ and continue to eat Him (and drink Him) spiritually. And I do not need bread to do it.

This is a ritual added to faith (like circumcision) that makes the cross of Christ of none effect. No outward ritual has saving power.
 
See there it is again.

It is either this or that.

Symbol or Real.

Catholics believe in both!

We are fed both spirit and body.

Why is it always one or the other with Non-Catholics?

Can’t they see the complete truth? Not the Half truth.
 
The choices a Non-Catholic must make:

Faith **or **Works

Water or belief

bible or church

bread or Jesus

confession to God **or **to a priest

saved or not saved

No choices to make for Catholics:

Faith and works, James 2:17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

water and belief for baptism,it is a visible sign of an inward grace.

bible and church, for if it was not for the church there would be no bible.

the bread becomes Jesus

Confess to God and through a priest

Saved by Christ and we still sin.

Not one or the other,both!
 
fellowChristian said:
The choices a Non-Catholic must make:

Faith **or **Works

Water or belief

bible or church

bread or Jesus

confession to God **or **to a priest

saved or not saved

Hardly

No choices to make for Catholics:

Faith and works, James 2:17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

water and belief for baptism,it is a visible sign of an inward grace.

bible and church, for if it was not for the church there would be no bible.

the bread becomes Jesus

Confess to God and through a priest

Saved by Christ and we still sin.

Not one or the other,both!
Click to expand...
 
OneForTruth
Click to expand...
No outward ritual has saving power.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit lied about baptism too! :eek: I guess he could have had them write a much shorter book then. Maybe he should have had each one just write, “Believe and be in…The End”. That would have made it much easier, and then I could believe you too.
 
OneForTruth said:
Flesh in verse 63 is not referring to HIS flesh - I thought I explained that well but flesh is referring to the words that he was saying…thinking of these words from a carnal/literal standpoint. He then says that the words are to be taken as spirit.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Here is the passage in context:61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
The Spirit gives life by enabling us to see with “spiritual” eyes. Jesus said that the “human reasoning” or “fleshly/carnal” thinking would never enable them to see the truth of the Eucharist.

Clearly, we can see from the reaction of the crowd that day that Jesus was right - they could not understand what he was talking about. I don’t think even Peter and the Twelve “got it” that day!

Did they ever ask him about it? Did he ever explain this to them privately like he did all the other parables and teachings that they did not understand? Is there a passage that clarifies His teaching and lays out the version of the story that you believe? NO!

In fact, when Jesus asked them, “Do you want to go away also?”, this is evidence that Jesus KNEW that they did NOT understand his teaching, either. Yet, he put them on the spot and asked them to CHOOSE! If Jesus had known that the Apostles understood him to be speaking symbolically of his own words, He would not have put the question to them!
So…do not look at the words from a fleshly (carnally minded) standpoint but from a spiritual standpoint.
Click to expand...
I you think about it, this is exactly what Catholics do. They hear the words of Jesus about eating and drinking his flesh and blood and they accept the VERY spiritual reality that His flesh and blood are truly present in the sacrament. YOU on the other hand, take Jesus’ words and REDUCE them to a mere pep-talk about embracing his teachings.

Why on earth would the disciples need to be told, “Listen up, guys, my teachings are really spiritual, and you would do well to pay attention to them”? Talk about stating the obvious! In fact, Peter KILLS your interpretation by stating the obvious: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Do you get it? The disciples ALREADY KNEW THAT JESUS’ WORDS brought life.

Jesus’ teaching in the latter part of John 6 has absolutely nothing to do with driving home a point that the Disciples already understood. It was a pre-figurement of a teaching that would be re-visited in the Upper Room.
He was not talking about literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood…I have eaten Christ and continue to eat Him (and drink Him) spiritually. And I do not need bread to do it.
Click to expand...
Jesus absolutely was speaking of real flesh, real drink and not “spiritual food for thought.” You have chewed on his words but never his flesh given for the life of the world. You have no life in you.
This is a ritual added to faith (like circumcision) that makes the cross of Christ of none effect. No outward ritual has saving power.
Click to expand...
More error. Baptism washes away the stain of original sin, and “baptism now saves you.”
 
Randy_Carson said:
Clement of Alexandria

“Eat my flesh,” [Jesus] says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients.// He delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children. (Paidagogos 1:6; 43:3)
Click to expand...
Randy,
I am not suggesting you are intentionally doing this, but you’ve spliced 1:6 and 43:3 together…This SMACKS of dishonesty! When read in context you’ll see Clement is even further from the churches belief than you’ve thought. I posted links to these in the clement thread I’ll dig it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top